Not far behind many of our arguments about the legal use of drones in warfare
is the hope that we’ll wake up tomorrow and they’ll just go away. No more wedding
parties mistaken for an al Qaeda rendezvous. No more homes obliterated, no more
after-action justifications for why a child, or two, was among the rubble.

This of course is no surprise, as it was reported just last month that the
administration, of which Brennan has been the chief facilitator of the gruesomely
referred to "kill
list," has developed a
"playbook" or "manual" that is "designed to establish
clear rules for targeted-killing operations but leaves open a major exemption
for the CIA’s campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan," according to a Washington
Post report Jan. 19.

In other words, consider drones a permanent addition to the arsenal, and don’t
expect a lot of serious oversight by congress, which seems to be left in the
dark more often than not.

When Michael Hastings wrote about the "Rise
of the Killer Drones" for Rolling Stone in April 2012, he said,
"the remote-control nature of unmanned missions enables politicians to
wage war while claiming we’re not at war." Furthermore:

… the Pentagon and the CIA can now launch military strikes or order assassinations
without putting a single boot on the ground – and without worrying about a public
backlash over U.S. soldiers coming home in body bags. The immediacy and secrecy
of drones make it easier than ever for leaders to unleash America’s military
might – and harder than ever to evaluate the consequences of such clandestine
attacks.

More recently, in
a piece on the Brennan hearings, Hastings called it the administration’s
"drone romance … part of an evolution to find a foreign-policy balance
that hits ‘the sweet spot.’"

But as we are finding out quite quickly, the "sweet spot" is much
more than the government’s search for guilt-free killing in an age of perpetual
global war. The courtship of the drones, begun in the Bush Administration and
superseded by a full-blown love affair under President Obama, has given birth
to a belching baby drone industry that is very demanding, very hungry and growing
off the charts.

A recent story for Investor
Placeinvited speculators to "Cash in on the Coming Drone
Wars," pointing to burgeoning Wall Street investment opportunities with
companies specializing in UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) systems and technology.
Many of these companies are familiar studs in the stable: Northrop Grumman,
which builds the Global
Hawk RQ-4 drone; Lockheed Martin, maker of the RQ-170
Sentinel; Raytheon produces the
Cobra; Boeing is now perfecting the hydrogen-powered Phantom
Eye; and U.K-based BAE Systems is currently testing the Mantis
and Taranis drones. The spunky kid on the block is General
Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., daddy of the drone most familiar to
us for its menacing size and killer apps: the
Predator.

These companies are at the spearhead of a multibillion dollar drone industry
that is just chomping at the bit to get more UAVs and more technology to a.)
domestic markets, and b.) foreign governments. According
to a 2012 study by the Virginia-based Teal Group, the world is spending
$6.6 billion a year on UAVs and technology. That is expected to increase
to $11.4 billion a year over the next decade, bringing total global spending
on UAVs to some $89 billion overall. The U.S government, Teal estimates, will account
for 62 percent of the total RDT&E (research, development, test & evaluation)
spending, and 55 percent of the procurement of UAVs and technology.

That’s a lot of coin, which would explain a number of things that have been
going on in Congress and on K Street for the last few years. As demand overseas rises, industry lobbyists and their friends on Capitol
Hill have been pressuring the federal government to relax export rules in
order to sell more drones to foreign governments. Meanwhile, here at home, they’re leaning
on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to speed up its integration of
drones into its national airspace regulations by 2015, which would put drones
on near-equal footing with planes and provide uniform guidelines for their usage.
The process was begun Valentine’s Day a year ago upon the signing of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act.

Uses include mapping, assessing disaster recovery and rescue efforts, monitoring
pipelines and powerlines – the more innocuous stuff. Where it gets controversial
is the accelerated clamor for drones for domestic law enforcement and surveillance,
beginning with federal agencies. For example, the Department of Homeland Security
via the U.S Customs and Border Protection, locked in a $443 million contract
in November with General Automics to add to their fleet of 10 surveillance drones.
The sole-source contract, according
to California Watch, would buy up to 14 more unarmed Predator B drones and
equipment. Each drone costs the government about $18.5 million.

"Customs and Border Protection," according to California Watch, "said
the agency could not fly enough drones operations – which would put national
security and Border Patrol agents at risk – if it didn’t award [this] sole-source
contract."

The agency tries to justify these huge expenses by underscoring its work in
drug interdiction: flying about 5,500 hours, netting more than 58,000 pounds
of drugs, contributing to 130 arrests and 1,408 apprehensions of suspects in
2012 (though critics point out it’s still a fraction of the drug busts carried
out without drones each year — another story entirely).

All of this is considered positive, at least to the industry, which sees investment
opportunities around every corner. As the November Investor Place report
announced, "the commercial market potential for drones could be the next
blockbuster." Indeed.

Congress lends a hand

Drones – building them, using them domestically and in our wars, as well as
selling them overseas, has their detractors in congress, for sure, but they’re
quickly being drowned out by other members willing to stand up strong for drone
freedom (and take all the lucrative industry contributions that come with it).
Nowhere is this more baldly displayed than in the House
and Senate
UAV Caucuses, which are heavily supported by the drone lobby, like the Association
for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI).

Consider this: the House caucus, which is three-years old, has been pretty
much up front about its support for expanding the drone industry and
their willingness to facilitate regulatory acceleration where the industry
is concerned (i.e. export controls, new FAA
guidelines), of course with obligatory noises made over the issue of safety and
privacy. There is no mention from either caucus in public comments or mission
statements so far about the use of drones against targeted suspects in war.
It’s simply not not on the radar.

No, this is an industry-focused enterprise, and so not surprisingly, these
caucuses are led in part by two of the biggest defense hawks on Capitol Hill
– Rep.
Buck "my job is defense" McKeon, R-CA (home of the great drone
builders), and Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK., who spent a great deal of his time
during the recent Chuck Hagel confirmation hearings worried that Hagel wasn’t
sufficiently gassed for war. Both lead their parties in the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees. In fact, many of the caucus members on the House
side hail from the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, and are well
placed to green light programs, fund them, and get through red tape.

The caucus membership rolls are also peppered with members who live on the
southern border, where agencies are most jazzed about using drones. The lobbying dollars and political contributions from defense companies that
make UAVs are naturally flowing in this direction, as the numbers bear out.

First, according to Center for Responsive Politics, some $8 million in drone-related
funds were funneled into caucus members’ coffers over the last four years. House
caucus members from Virginia, Texas, California and New York, where the industry
is concentrated, drew the most money from sources affiliated with AUVSI. For
example, 11 drone caucus members from California received more than $2.4 million
from industry PACs and employees during the 2010 and 2012 cycles. McKeon,
the top recipient of all defense-related funds, got $833,650 in that period.

Meanwhile, AUVSI – whose "diamond" level members include the usual
suspects — Northrop Grumman, General Automics and Raytheon – spends a lot of
time on the Hill schmoozing with members and hosting Beltway confabs for the industry.
Last May, the organization announced it would be embarking on a massive PR blitz
to promote the use of drones, here and overseas.

"You have to keep repeating the good words," AUVSI President Michael
Toscano told Salon in
a piece at the time. "People who don’t know what they’re talking about
say these are spy planes or killer drones. They’re not." Writer Jefferson
Morely said Toscano proceeded to criticize Salon and other news organizations
"for using the term ‘drones,’ saying ‘remotely piloted vehicles’ is more
accurate."

It doesn’t matter if you call them Rainbow Fairy Flying Machines piloted by
Susie Snowflake and Unicorn Andy, these things do assassinate abroad,
they do impinge on privacy, and no one can say with
any certainty that they won’t be crashing into homes and into other things
once so many of them are in the air.

And who knows if, or better yet when, these domestic UAVs will be armed,
particularly those on the border. It doesn’t take a tin foil hat and a taste
for Alex Jones to start thinking this way. No one could have imagined that the
same Reaper drones that dropped bombs over Iraq would be patrolling the Arizona
desert, but they are. And don’t forget, there is an entire constituency in Congress
that now calls that progress.

Booming Foreign Market

Meanwhile, the armed drone and technology sales are ramping up overseas, thanks
to some heavy lobbying here in Washington. Big defense companies are looking
to make up budget shortfalls in other areas and are putting the pressure on
the Pentagon and State Department to loosen export controls (both are concerned
about the possible flow of our drone technology to unfriendly governments and
groups) so that the U.S can compete in the global market. That market is now
dominated by American companies, but has top sellers like Israel right at their
heels, according to this Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report, issued in July.

The report finds that there was $240 million worth of UAV licensing given to
foreign governments for the transfer of drones and technology between 2005 and
2011. Most were for smaller UAVs for surveillance purposes (which the GAO says
will benefit the U.S in the long run), but a limited number of Predators and
Reapers have also been transferred to Italy, Reapers to the United Kingdom,
and Global Hawk airframes to Germany as part of joint development programs for
NATO.

But the industry wants to expand much further and apparently has the backing
of the White House, which
announced last year that it would double the number of commercial and military
UAV sales to foreign buyers. The Pentagon has reportedly softened its stand,
and is greasing the wheels for more drone sales, so the thrust of the effort
is now concentrated on the State Department and congress to convince hold outs
that such drone sales are not only good for the economy and for our allies,
it’s a matter of national security.

Just one more deal for U.S foreign military sales, which topped $65 billion
for all transfers (not just UAVs) by the end of 2012. Sales were increasing
so fast last year, wrote
Sydney J. Freedberg, that "the Pentagon can’t keep its PowerPoint slides
updated."

When so much money is involved, the moral and legal arguments against foreign
UAV uses and sales tend to get lost or marginalized, especially when they are
being touted as the "sweet spot" for next-gen warfare, and all
the real Beltway interests that matter want them to succeed. As for domestic
drone use, it’s just a matter of time. In this case, the market does decide,
and right now it’s decided it likes drones a whole lot.

Kelley, you are beyond question the Queen of "tell it like it is". With all of the deception, double-dealing and misdirection there has to be a "true North". In my neighborhood, blue collar to the core, even the uneducated understand that "it's all about the money." However, that factor is hardly ever brought to light. In the midst of the worst economic downturn in modern times, there needs to be someone who connects the dots. These are fantastic economic times for the few, the well-placed and the conscience-free. No depression here. The light of truth pierces the darkness. "Give 'em hell" was the watchword of another era, but still relevant today.

Thanks Kelley! People forget that defense contractors are a business and that when a new technology is developed for the battlefield they will soon seek to sell it elsewhere. As drones are only fit for surveillance of the public and "policing." i.e. maiming and killing, from the skies that is what they will be used for in their civilian applications. Wasn't there a Bruce Willis movie set in the near future where robot police vehicles roamed the skies?

Nintendo and Volkswagen might soon be getting together to sell you a low cost family drone for patrolling your property. The NRA will insist that these machines be armed, and that to not do so violates your Constitutional rights as Americans. That's what they will call real progress.
Drones are the mechanical mosquitoes that buzz overhead constantly disrupting and blighting people's everyday lives, and many innocents abroad are certainly dying because of them. While this particular swamp needs to be drained, cluster bombs, land mines and cruise missiles still also prevail, and they are all weapons of terror.
That so many US liberals and Democrats are quite comfortable with the reality that their beloved Emperor now sits upon his throne on 'Terror Tuesday', and ends people's lives simply with a thumbs down is just shameful.

I must agree with your basic premise, and also believe that the Pandora has been unleashed and that drones are here to stay. They are simply too convenient, economical and impersonal for the government to back off of their use, especially in times of austerity. But we MUST demand that such weapons be treated in a manner which wraps them back under traditional military targetting rules, including the law of war concepts that have (generally) guided our traditional military operations. This must include Constitutional considerations and constraints. But only if we the people demand such accountability will it occur.

Considering we're treated to lurid tales of Jihad Drones coming to blow us away, I think the American public will be very justified in developing Personal Air Defense Systems to be placed on their property. If Joe the Plumber sees a drone over head (or his PADS detects one in the clouds) how can he *really* be sure it's an American drone and not one of Theirs sneaking in to rain death and destruction on our fair nation? Wouldn't Joe be a HERO for shooting down a terrorist drone? Wouldn't he??

I predict at least one civilian-operated DroneWatch website dedicated to tracking domestic drones, with individual Drone Spotters contributing reports so we'll know what's really up there and what is really accounted for.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer, is a longtime
political reporter for FoxNews.com and
a contributing editor at The American Conservative.
She is also a Washington correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine. Her Twitter account is @KelleyBVlahos.